Che Library 


of the 


Aniversity of North Carolina 


Collection of Porth Caroliniana 


som yee uA 
00034028926 | 


Coe G GS 
ee FOR USE ONLY IN 


THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION 


INQUIRY 


INTO THE 


THE 


8 
ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH AND INCREASE-OF POPULATION IN THE 
SOUTHERN STATES: 


IN WHICH 


THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY 


Is 


CONSIDERED IN A POLITICO-ECONOMICAL POINT OF VIEW. 


BY A CAROLINIAN. Daniel Reaves GoodLoe 


of FA brlloe 


Bowe 


WASHINGTON, D. C:: 


W. BLANCHARD, PRINTER, PENN. AVENUE, 4 
One door west of Jackson Hall: ; 


eee eevese 


PREFACE. 


OOS 


The author would more particularly direct the 
reader’s attention to the second and the following 
chapters, which embrace those of his views, which 
may be regarded as new. ‘The first chapter is merely 
introductory; and although the facts there stated 
present a striking view of the subject, they are 
such as have been frequently brought to the atten- 
tion of the public. I reiterate them here, for the 
information of those who have not met with them 
elsewhere, and also as showing the necessity of fur- 
ther inquiry into the causes which have produced 
such a difference in the wealth and importance of 
the North and South. In the third chapter I have 
availed myself of the Report of the Secretary of the 
Treasury to illustrate my theory of the Unproduc- 
tiveness of Slave Property. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2012 with funding from 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 


https://archive.org/details/inquiryintocausegood 


P/313f 


INQUIRY 


INTO 


THE CAUSES WHICH HAVE RETARDED 


THE 


ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH AND INCREASE OF POPULA- 


TION IN THE SOUTHERN STATES. 


CHAPTER 


In examining the causes which have retarded the accumulation 
of wealth and population in the Southern or slaveholding States, it 
will be proper to advert to the particular circumstances in which 
the inferiority of the South, as contrasted with the North, consists. 
The reader will perceive, by turning to the map, that the slavehold- 
ing States, fourteen in number, commencing with Maryland, con- 
stitute much the larger portion of the Union, and according to the 
computation of geographers, contains an area of six hundred and 
eighty thousand square miles :* whereas the fourteen free States, to- 
gether with Iowa and Wisconsin,t contain only four hundred and 
fifty thousand square miles. The Southern climate generally, is 
esteemed the more wholesome, her soil equal to that of the North- 
ern States, and her productions surpassing in importance those, 
perhaps, of any country in the world. For while her capacity for 
the production of grain, and all other articles which make up the 
staple of human subsistence and human comfort, is unsurpassed, 
she enjoys an almost exclusive monopoly in the supply of two 


articles, cotton and tobacco, which form of themselves, if not the 


chief object, certainly the greatest item of the commerce of nations. 
To these must be added the important articles, sugar, rice, and indi- 
go, the production of which in the United States is entirely confined 
to the South. Her mineral resources, and her natural facilities of 
internal and external commerce, are equal or superior to those of 
the Northern States. If, therefore, the Southern States are behind 
the Northern in all the elements of social improvement, the cause 


_* This supposes that the limits of the State of Texas, when detached from the vacant ter- 
ritory which pertains to it, will be fifty thousand square miles; which is about*the average 
size of the large States. 


} This computation supposes that Iowa and Wisconsin will contain fifty thousand square 
miles each. 


6 


is clearly not traceable to physical impediments. For with superior 
soil, climate and productions, equal natural facilities of inland navi- 
gation and external commerce, and greater extent of territory, it is 
quite reasonable to infer, that, all other things being equal, the 
South would have been in advance of the North in population and 
commerce, and as a consequence, in the number and size of her 
towns and cities, and the general improvement of the country. 
But for some cause, the reverse of all this is the case. The North- 
erh States contain a much larger population upon a much smaller 
territory. They monopolize nearly all the foreign commerce of the 
country, besides carrying on a more extensive internal trade than 
the South; their manufactures, and perhaps agriculture, are greater 
in quantity, as both are unquestionably superior in quality. The 
Northern cities are numerous, large, and elegant, and evince a ra- 
pidity of growth at every successive census to which no parallel is 
to be found in history. On the other hand, the towns and cities in 
the Southern States (excepting those upon the Northern border, 
and New Orleans, which, as the emporium of the whole Mississippi 
valley, receives its principal contributions of trade from the North- 
west,) are few in number and meagre in appearance, exhibiting 
little of the activity and spirit which is to be seen in the Northern 
cities, and many of them are retrograding in population. 

If we revert to the history of the country, we find that the South- 
ern part of it was settled by Europeans even before the Northern ; 
and that at the period of 1790, when the first census was taken 
under the Constitution, the population of the South was but little 
behind that of the North—the former being one million nine hund- 
red and three thousand; the latter two millions and forty thousand, 
the difference amounting to only one hundred and thirty-seven 
thousand. It must be regarded as a circumstance which renders 
the present great disparity of numbers, amounting to nearly three 
millions according to the census of 1840, the more remarkable, that 
the breadth of frontier which lay contiguous to the Southern States, 
at the period of 1790, was several times greater than that of the 
North; and consequently admitted of an earlier and more rapid 


settlement than the remoter parts to which the Northwestern emi-_ 


grants must resort. The early settlement of the Northwest was 
likewise retarded by the presence of warlike Indians, which is 
another circumstance favorable to the increase of population in the 
South and Southwest, as it would naturally turn the tide of North- 
ern and European emigration in that direction. And the result has 
been, accordingly, that two States had risen up along the Southern 
frontier, (Kentucky and Tennessee,) before the settlement of any 
Northwestern State. These advantages of position, climate and 
productions, it would be quite natural to suppose, would have given 
to the South, at the expiration of fifty years, a population much 
greater than that of the Northern part of the Union—not only 
greater in the aggregate, but greater in proportion to extent of 
territory—greater to the square mile. The reverse of all this, how- 
ever, is strangely true. 


‘SL BNSN 


Y 


But the contrast will become more striking, if we compare the 
contiguous parts of the North and South with each other; this 
natrower view of the subject is the fairer likewise, there being less 
dissimilarity of circumstances. New York and Virginia, though 
not contiguous, enjoy nearly equal advantages of position; each 
touching the Atlantic, and possessing an excellent harbor upon its 
coast. Ifthe harbor of the city of New York is superior to that of 
Norfolk, the difference is fully compensated by the advantage of a 
more extended communication with the interior. New York has 
but one natural communication with the interior, while Norfolk has 
many. The territorial extent of the State of New York is estimated 
at fifty thousand square miles, that of Virginia at sixty-five thous- 
and; so that, if there be any superiority in the soil of the former, 
which may be questioned, the more genial climate and extensive 
territory of the latter may be set down as a fair equivalent. One 
would think that the ratio of increase of population in the two 
States, under these equal circumstances, would be equal; and that 
the State which contained the larger population at the beginning 
of any series of years, as at the period of 1790, would maintain a 
proportionate superiority of numbers at the end of that series in 
1840. Thus, Virginia in 1790 contamed a population of seven 
hundred and forty-seven thousand—that of New York was only 
three hundred and forty thousand ; and the ratio of one to the other 
was something more than two to one in favor of Virginia. 

After making due allowance, therefore, for a greater emigration 
from the more populous State, it would be reasonable to expect, 
without the intervention of some latent evil, that the population of 
Virginia, at the expiration of fifty years, would be nearly twice as 
great as that-of New York. But the census of 1840 developes the 
astonishing fact that the population of New York is within a small 
fraction of being double that of Virginia—the former being two 
millions four hundred and twenty-nine thousand (2,429,000)—the 
Jatter only one million two hundred and forty thousand (1,240,000)— 
a ratio of nearly two to one in favor of New York. If the com- 
parison be made between. Virginia and Pennsylvania, the result, 
though less striking, will show much to the disadvantage of the 
former. But Pennsylvania, it must be remembered, lies remote 
from the Atlantic, and bears no comparison with Virginia im its 
natural facilities of internal communication: its great centre of 
commerce, Philadelphia, has a rival, too, as the emporium of the 
back country, on either hand, in New York and Baltimore. 

If the comparison be extended to the Western States, it will be 
attended with similar results—as for instance, Kentucky and Ohio. 
The former in 1790 containing a population of seventy-three thous- 
and, the latter only three thousand ; but in 1840, the population of 
Ohio amounted to one million five hundred and twenty thousand, 
(1,520,000), while that of Kentucky was only seven hundred and 
eighty thousand, (780,000). The general improvement of the face 
of the country, the construction of roads and canals, agricultural 
improvements, public and private buildings, the growth of towns 


8 


and cities, in the States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, seem 
to be more than commensurate with their increase of population, if 
compared with the condition of things in Virginia and Kentucky. 

These results, so unpromising of the future prosperity of the 
South, have excited much speculation in regard to their causes; 
but public opinion seems to have settled upon the conviction that 
slavery is the source of all the evils, or the chief evil which mars 
the prosperous career of the Southern States. 


CHAPTER IL. 


Reflection upon the facts set forth above, has led the author of 
these pages into the common opinion that slavery has been the 
obstacle which has retarded the improvement and population of the 
Southern States. But at this point another question arises. How 
does slavery present that obstacle? The common, and I believe 
the universal opinion is, that slavery affects the prosperity of the 
country by its tendency to degrade labor in the estimation of the 
poor, and to engender pride in the rich; and as a consequence, to 
produce idleness and inattention to business in all. And besides, 
it is said to have the effect of keeping away foreign immigrants, 
whose sentiments are averse to the institution. These combined 
causes, it is thought, have produced the great disparities between 
the North and South above adverted to. 

~— It will not be attempted to deny the existence or the operation 
of the causes assigned; but my present purpose will be to show, 
that the chief evils of slavery to the body politic result from prin- 
ciples more stubborn and powerful than its moral effects upon the 
people. 

— If a farmer in Ohio own one hundred acres of land, with the 
cattle, the food to subsist them, and utensils of husbandry neces- 
sary in its tillage, he will, as is obvious, be able to enter upon its 
cultivation with an additional ready capital sufficient to supply his 
laborers with maintenance. Thus, if the food and shelter of a free 
laborer be worth fifty dollars per annum, and one laborer be neces- 
sary to the cultivation of ten acres, then five hundred dollars would 
be the additional capital necessary in the case above supposed. 
The laborers’ wages invariably come out of the sale of the crop, and 
consequently there existed no necessity for tne employer to have 
it by him. 

The illustration may be varied by estimating the amount of capi- 
tal necessary to the making a given product—one hundred bales of 
cotton for instance. If, as is asserted, one man can produce ten 
bales of cotton, (of course the product per hand is immaterial to 
the illustration), then the capital necessary to the production of one 
hundred bales, apart from the land, etc., as above, will be five hund-. 
red dollars. 

I will now inquire the amount of capital necessary to employ 
slave labor in the cultivation of one hundred acres of land, or the 


9 


production of one hundred bales of cotton. If men slaves be worth 
seven hundred dollars, and the food and clothing of a slave fifty 
dollars per annum, the cultivation of one hundred acres of land by 
the labor of ten slaves in Alabama, requires a capital of seven 
thousand five hundred dollars, apart from capital invested in land, 
cattle, &c., as above. Or the production of one hundred bales of 
cotton by slave labor requires a capital of seven thousand five 
hundred dollars, apart from the value of land, &c. I have based the 
illustration, for convenience, upon the supposition that the labor of 
men only is employed, but it is perfectly obvious that the principle 
is true generally of all free and all slave labor. nee 

Again. The average annual cotton crop of the United States 
for the last three or four years is estimated to have amounted to 
two millions of bales, (2,000,000). If it be supposed, for conveni- 
ence, that the labor of men slaves only is employed in its produc- 
tion ; and the same suppositions remaining as above with reference 
to the value of slaves, the product per hand, and the price of pro- 
visions and clothing; then the number of slaves employed in the 
production of the crop of the country will be two hundred thous- 
and ; and the capital necessary to employ them will be one hundred 
and fifty millions of dollars, ($150,000,000), which sum includes 
the value of the slaves and the cost of their yearly maintenance. 
But if slavery were out of the way, and free labor employed in the 
production of the cotton crop, the ready capital necessary to pro- 
duce it, apart from the value of land, cattle, utensils, &c., as in the 
above calculations, will be ten millions of dollars, ($10,000,000) ; 
which is the sum. necessary to feed and shelter the laborers for 
twelve months. 

It follows from the foregoing illustrations, that the ready capital 
necessary to employ slave labor, is to the ready capital necessary to 
employ free labor, in the production of a given quantity of cotton, 
or the cultivation of a given number of acres of land, in the ratio 
of the value of a slave, together with the cost of his yearly main- 
tenance and clothing, to the price of board and shelter for a free 
laborer. Upon the above suppositions of the value of slave prop- 
erty, the price of provisions, &c., the ratio is fifteen to one, (15 to 
1). But it must not be inferred from hence that the whole capital 
employed to yield a given product with slave labor is fifteen times 
greater than that necessary where free labor is employed; because 
in this case the value of land, cattle, tools of husbandry, &c., come 
into the calculation, and constitute a part of the capital invested; 
and since these items will be the same in the two cases, the ratio 
of capital to product, which with reference to labor only is fifteen 
to one, is varied in proportion to the value of lands, &c. To speak ° 
arithmetically, it is the addition of a constant quantity to the ante- 
cedent and consequent, or to the numerator and denominator of a 
fraction, and of course has the effect of lessening the ratio, or the 
quotient. Thus, in the cultivation of one hundred acres of land, 
the ready capital necessary to employ slave labor, at the rates sup- 


10 


posed above, is seven thousand five hundred dollars, ($7,500). 
Add to this sum the value of the land at ten dollars per acre, or 
one thousand dollars, ($1,000), together with the value of the 
cattle, their provender, and the utensils of husbandry necessary in 
its cultivation, which may be worth five hundred dollars more, 
($500), and the whole amount of capital employed becomes nine 
thousand dollars, ($9,000). In the cultivation of the same quantity 
- of land with free labor, the whole capital necessary is the price of 
provisions and shelter for the laborers, which by the above suppo- 
sitions amounts to five hundred dollars, ($500), together with the 
value of the land, one thousand dollars, ($1,000), as before, and of 
the cattle, utensils, &c., five hundred more, ($500), making the 
whole capital two thousand dollars, ($2,000). Hence the whole 
capital invested in the cultivation of one hundred acres of land 
with slave labor, is to that necessary where free labor is employed, 
as nine thousand is to two thousand, or as nine to two, or four and 
a halfto one. This ratio of course becomes less in proportion as 
the value of land, cattle, &c., is augmented. 

Thus, if the land be worth one hundred dollars per acre, or ten 
thousand dollars ($10,000); then, the other items remaining as be- 
fore, the capital becomes, where slave labor is employed, eighteen 
thousand dollars ($18,000); and where free labor is employed, 
eleven thousand ($11,000); in this case the ratio is something more 
than three to two (3 to 2). 

It is apparent from this, as well as from the preceding illustra- 
tions, that without reference to the ratio, the capital invested, where 
slave labor is employed, in the cultivation of a given number of 
acres, or the making a given product, exceeds the capital necessary 
where free labor is employed, by the value of the slaves. 

All the foregoing calculations are based upon the supposition 
that slave labor is necessarily and exclusively employed in the 
slaveholding States, and that each planter is the owner of the slaves 
he employs. This is not true in fact, much of the labor of the 
Southern States being performed by freemen; but that circumstance 
by no means affects the principle involved, it only serves to miti- 
gate its consequences upon the prosperity of the country; and it 
is obvious, that to make such an objection to the principle is to 
acknowledge its operation in every case where slave labor is em- 
ployed. The employment of hired slave labor forms no exception 
to the case; the hired slaves being nothing else than borrowed 
capital. 

It may not be improper here to anticipate a probable objection 
to the principle maintained in the preceding pages. It may be 
thought irreconcilable with the well known fact, that agriculture 
is equally or perhaps more profitable where slave labor is used than 
is the case where the labor of freemen is employed. This difficulty 
will be removed by reference to the illustration above, where one 
hundred acres of land are supposed to be cultivated by ten men. 
The capital necessary where the labor of slaves is made use of was 


11 


nine thousand dollars ($9,000); where free labor is employed, only 
two thousand ($2,000). The product being the same, it is thought 
unaccountable that the smaller capital should not yield a larger 
profit. This is accounted for by considering that the employer of 
free labor is compelled to give up a large portion of his crop, or 
money derived from the sale of it, as the wages of labor; and this 
sum corresponds to the profit upon the excess of capital which the 
employer of slave labor makes use of. But this necessity which 
the employer of free labor is under of distributing a large part of his 
crop among his laborers, had no tendency to check its production, 
the wages not being paid until the end of the year, out of what is 
produced by the laborer himself; and it is equally obvious, that the 
distribution of it can have no effect in enhancing or diminishing 
the aggregate product. I have already remarked upon the case of 
hiring slave labor, that it is nothing else than borrowed capital ; and 
consequently, that the making a given product, or the cultivation 
of a given number of acres of land with hired slave labor involves 
an equal invested crpital, as when the slaves are the property of the 
employers. But the employer of hired labor is under the same 
necessity of parting with the wages of his laborers as is the em- 
ployer of free labor. Hence, though the capital employed is the 
same as would be necessary had it all been the employer’s, his 
profit is only equal to that of the employer of free labor; and 
whether he pays the wages to the laborer, or to a master who holds 
him as property, the aggregate wealth produced is the same. 

The difference between the two capitals is seven thousand dol- 
lars ($7,000), which is the value of the slaves. Now, if a free la- 
borer be estimated to be worth the same to himself that a slave is to 
his master, the agricultural operation with free labor may be regard- 
ed as a joint stock or partnership business, in which the employer 
invests two thousand dollars, and each laborer seven hundred, or 
the ten seven thousand, which would make the capital equal to that 
where slave labor is employed. 


CHAPTER II. 


I have based the foregoing reasoning upon facts and suppositions 
which all must admit to be correct and legitimate ; but, to give the 
subject a more practical bearing, I will call to my aid the volumi- 
nous statistical report of the Secretary of the Treasury, recently 
published by order of Congress. It is known to the reading public 
that Mr. Waker, during the past year, addressed circulars to all 
the principal Agricultural, Commercial, and Manufacturing men of 
the country, in which he propounds to them numerous questions 
connected with their several occupations. His object was to 
obtain from them such information in relation to the profits of 
capital in the different branches of industry, as would enable Con- 
gress to apportion the tariff Jaws with an enlightened regard to 


12 


the interests of all. It is no part of my purpose at present to ex- 
press any opinion upon the merits of the design or the execution 
of the work; or to draw any inference from it in reference to the 
Tariff Policy. I may, however, make use of facts in illustration of 
my subject, which were collected for a totally different end. 

Mr. WaLKER issued two series of questions, (marked Nos. 1 and 
2), each series embracing quite a number of inquiries with which I 
have nothing to do at present. The fourth, in the first circular, in- 
quires of the manufacturer, what is the amount of his capital in- 
vested in grounds and buildings, water-power and machinery. The 
fifth inquires the average amount of materials, and cash for the pur- 
chase of materials and payment of wages, necessary to be kept 
constantly on hand. The twelfth inquires the number of men, 
women, and children employed, and the average wages of each 
class. 

To these questions, Mr. Samurt BacHeEtor (I presume a direc- 
tor or agent) replies, that the York Cotton Manufacturing Com- 
pany, at Saco, in Maine, has a capital, in grounds, buildings, and 
machinery, amounting to five hundred and fifty thousand dollars, 
($550,000). Their business capital, invested in materials and for 
the payment of wages, is four hundred and fifty thousand dollars, 
($450,000)—the whole is therefore one million of dollars, ($1,000,- 
000). But I have reason to think this sum is over-stated, in this 
way: The amount set down as the business capital probably em- 
braces the whole sum employed in that way during a year. But 
it is not necessary to have on hand the cash to purchase materials 
and pay wages for the current year in advance, since these charges 
can be met by the income of the establishment, which I presume 
comes in almost daily, or at short intervals. The only amount 
of business capital necessary would be that sum which would 
keep the machinery in motion until the completion of a fabric and 
its sale. I see confirmation of this view of the matter in a case 
which I will introduce presently. However, in this case, let the 
capital, fixed and floating, be set down as above, at a million. The 
number of men employed is 200—the number of women from 900 
to 1,200: Let us put down the number of women at the low aver- 
age of 1,000. The whole number employed will be twelve hundred 
men and women. Here, then, in a free State, one million of dol- 
lars invested in the manufacture of cotton, employs twelve hundred 
adult persons. In a slave State, if slave labor be used, the capital 
of a company doing equal business, and employing an equal 
amount of labor with that at Saco, must exceed it by the whole 
value of twelve hundred slaves. That number of slaves, at present 
prices, would be worth little short of a million. They would at 
any rate command $700 each, or $840,000 for the whole. This 
sum, added to the other necessary capital, would make the invest- 
ment in an establishment like that at Saco, but employing slave 
labor, one million eight hundred and forty thousand dollars, 
($1,840,000). It is true that the employer of slave labor would be 


13 


exempt from the payment of wages, though not from the charge of 
maintaining his slaves; and, in view of the consideration above 
adverted to, that there could exist no necessity for keeping in hand 
the whole business capital spent in a year, I think little abatement 
need be made on that score—at any rate not mure than forty thou- 
sand dollars, which would leave the slaveholder’s capital eight hun- 
dred thousand dollars ($800,000) greater than that of the Saco 
company. 

yy, I have here supposed that a slave will do an equal amount of 
labor with a freeman, while the experience of men in every depart- 
ment of industry proves the contrary. It has grown into a proverb 
in the Southern States, that the labor of a white man is worth that 
of two slaves. Aft that rate, it would require a large addition to 
the above estimate of the capital necessary to carry on manufac- 
turing with slave labor. If in the simplest agricultural operations 
there exists such a disparity im the efficiency of free and slave 
labor, it must, in the nature of things, be still greater where skill 
and intelligence are requisite, as is the case in manufactures. Sup- 
posing it practicable to employ slaves extensively in manufactur- 
ing, it will hence be necessary to procure the most intelligent and 
faithful, and consequently such as command the highest prices. 
But notwithstanding that so large a capital is necessary to employ 
slaves in manufactures, an investment of that kind may yet be prof- 
itable* The excess of capital, which consists in the value of the 
slaves, though it produces nothing, saves the payment of wages. 
It may, in that way, yield as large a dividend to the owner as his 
other investment. I however find, by Mr. Watxer’s report, that 
Southern manufacturers almost invariably use. hired labor— free 
generally, no doubt. 

It is not my purpose to show that manufacturing at the South is 
impracticable: on the contrary, I incline to believe that the coarser 
fabrics may be made there with much advantage to the capitalist 
and to the community. But the fact that slavery absorbs the great 
bulk of Southern capital must always present an obstacle to exten- 
sive operations. So it is with commerce and all the other interests. 
They all exhibit a dwarfed or deformed appearance in comparison 
with similar occupations in free countries. Even agriculture, which 
is more profitable in the South than almost any where in the world, 
is conducted in the worst way imaginable. Slavery sits like the 
Old Man of the Sea upon the necks of the people, paralyzing every 
effort at improvement. This I shall show, in another place, is not, 
as is commonly supposed, attributable to inertness or indolence, 
but to slavery as an unproductive absorbent of capital. 

Mr. Enocn Hews is a tobacco, snuff, and segar manufacturer. 
In reply to questions four and five, he states his capital at thirty 
thousand dollars, ($30,000), of which twenty thousand is perma- 
nent, and ten thousand used in the purchase of materials and the 
payment of wages. He employs one hundred persons, mostly 
females. One hundred slaves of similar ages would be of the aver- 


14 


age value of $600 each, or sixty thousand in the aggregate. Add 
to it the capital invested by Mr. Hews, and ninety thousand dol- 
lars will be the sum necessary to conduct a similar establishment 
with slave labor. This sum is however subject to some abatement, 
for the reason stated in the preceding case, viz: that the employer 
of slave labor is exempt from the charge of wages. This item, 
however, would not exceed two or three thousand dollars. 

Mr. Cavin J. Mitts states, in answer to question fourth, that 
the capital of the Eagle Furnace, at Buffalo, New York, invested in 
buildings and machinery, i is thirty-five dhowsand dollars, ($35,000), 
and that the sum spent in a year in materials is thirty thousand 
dollars, ($30,000)—that expended in wages fifteen thousand dol- 
lars, ($15,000). The fixed capital, together with the business capi- 
tal absorbed in a year, is eighty thousand dollars, ($80,000). But, 
in answer to the thirty-third question, Mr. Mitts states, that the 
capital of the company is fifty thousand dollars, ($50,000). He 
evidently discriminates between the whole business capital absorbed 
in a year, and that portion of it which it is necessary to keep on 
hand at any one time. This is the case to which I referred in 
speaking of the Saco company. I have little doubt that the sum 
set down there as the business capital embraces the whole amount 
expended in a year. According to the statement of Mr. MILts, 
the current outlay in materials. and wages is three times greater 
than the amount of cash necessary at one time. Ifa similar abate- 
ment is to be made in the other cases, it is evident that I have not 
presented the question in its strongest light. 

Mr. Mitts states that the Eagle Furnace employs eighty men, 
at $1.50 per day.. Slaves, possessing equal skill, would not be 
worth less than $900 each, at present prices, and aggregately, 
seventy-two thousand dollars, ($72,000). Hence, if we allow that 
the employer of free labor will need $7,000 in ready cash, to pay 
wages, an establishment of equal extent, using slave labor, will 
require a capital of one hundred and fifteen thousand ney 
($115,000). 
+» But I deem it useless to multiply imstances, as any one oi 
wishes to examine*he subject further may do so by referring to the 
Secretary’s report. I have searched in vain for a case where slaves 
were exclusively employed in a manufacturing establishment in the 
Southern States, in order that I might present the subject under 
another aspect. It is mentioned that a factory in Alabama em- 
ploys thirty laborers, fifteen of whom are slaves belonging to the 
proprietors. -. The capital is thirty thousand dollars, ($30,000). If 
the fifteen slaves are of the average value of $600 each, they are 
ageregately worth $9,000, which, deducted from the whole invest- 
ment, leaves twenty-one thousand dollars, ($21,000), for the pro- 
ductive capitalemployed. If none but slaves were employed, then 
their value would be eighteen thousand dollars, ($18,000), which 
is more than half the capital stock. 

- I have not been able to find a distinction drawn in the accounts 


15 


of the production of sugar, between the value of slaves and of real 
and other capital invested. But it is stated that the whole capital 
engaged in the production of sugar, in 1840, was fifty millions of 
dollars, ($50,000,000); and that fifty thousand slaves of all ages are 
employed on the estates. Suppose the slaves to be worth $400 
each, their aggregate value will be twenty millions, ($20,000,000), 
which is an unproductive capital. But in the sugar-growing busi- 
ness, a great number of free laborers are employed, directly or in- 
directly. If all such persons were slaves, the capital unproductively 
employed in that branch of industry would bear a much larger pro- 
portion to the whole. 

I have used the phrase ‘‘ unproductively employed’”’ for conve- 
nience, but without a proper regard to accuracy. Capital invested 
in slaves cannot be said to be employed. The food and clothing 
of a slave is a productive investment, because it is an essential 
outlay; but his value as property cannot contribute any thing to 
production, for the reason that the destruction of the property by 
the liberation of the slave would in no degree destroy the efficiency 
of his labor. 


CHAPTER IV. 


It follows, from the foregoing reasoning, which I humbly think 
incontrovertible, that property in slaves has nothing to do with pro- 
duction ; for in every instance of the employment of slave labor, 
the capital must exceed the amount necessary where free labor is 
employed, by the value of the slaves. And hence all the wealth of 
individuals which has assumed that shape has added nothing to the 
resources of the State or Nation. It adds nothing to the taxable 
value or productive energies of the country: and yet has not been 
accumulated without the same expense of capital and industry 
which are necessary in producing other species of wealth. The 
abolition of slavery, therefore, while it would be attended with 
much individual loss, if effected without compensation to the own- 
er, would destroy none of the resources of the country. It would 
possess the same labor, and the same land and other materials to 
employ it—the same means and stronger motives—the hope of gain 
in a greater number. The tax which the slave bears as property, 
he would be equally able to pay in the character of a free citi- 
zen. The military strength of the country would be augmented, 
not simply by the number of slaves manumitted, but by that num- 
ber together with the number of freemen which would now be ne- 
cessary to hold the slaves in subjection. Slavery merely serves to 
appropriate the wages of labor—it distributes wealth, but cannot 
create it. This will be regarded as a strange peculiarity of slave 
property: that it is actively employed in productive pursuits, and 
yet yields nothing. The reason is this: It is the necessity which 
exists of appropriating the brute creation, and all inanimate sub- 


16 


stances, in order to render them productive, and the absence of 
that necessity with reference to human beings. The ox never vol- 
untarily assumes the yoke, nor the horse the saddle—both require 
a master to give them any agency in the production of wealth— 
and the same is true of all inanimate substances. But man, as all 
experience proves, will labor more assiduously in the accumulation 
of wealth, under the incentive of interest, than at the bidding of a 
master—the hope of gain having a more salutary effect upon him, 
than the fear of punishment. 

Since property invested in slaves is unproductive and useless, as is 
apparent from the above reasoning, the direct effect of its admission 
into any State, is, consequently, to divert the energies of the peo- 
ple from its improvement. But slavery is not simply unproductive ; 
it has a peculiarity which belongs to no other species of unproduc- 
tive capital. It substitutes the place of free citizens, by supplying 
all the demands for labor; and yet the substitute, as 1 have demon- 
strated, requires several times more capital to furnish it than is ne- 
cessary to obtain a supply of free labor. Thus, if the cotton plan- 
ter of Alabama desires to extend his operations by the cultivation 
of an additional hundred acres, with ten additional laborers, (the 
same suppositions remaining,) he must first accumulate nine thou- 
sand dollars. 

But if the farmer in Ohio of equal means should desire to extend 
his operations in equal degree, it would be necessary for him to 
accumulate only two thousand dollars for that end. Or if a citizen 
of New York should emigrate to Ohio with two thousand dollars, 
a number of laborers would thereby be induced to follow him, or 
he would add as much to the population and resources of the State 
as would be added to those of Alabama by an emigrant from Vir- 
ginia with a capital of nine thousand dollars. This, of course, sup- 
poses, as before remarked, that slave labor is exclusively employed ° 
in Alabama, and that the price of land is the same, ten dollars per 
acre, in the two States. 

The slave population of Virginia, in 1840, amounted to within a 
fraction of four hundred and fifty thousand, (450,000). They have 
been acquired, like other species of property, by the joint opera- 
tion of industry and capital; and if the average value of the slaves 
be three hundred dollars each, the sum of their value will be.one 
hundred and thirty-five million of dollars, [135,000,000]. Had 
slavery never been admitted into Virginia, the wealth which at 
present exists in that shape would of course have assumed some 
other—and would now appear in the form of improved lands, bet- 
ter and more numerous houses, towns, cities; more commerce and 
manufactures ; and the place of the four hundred and fifty thous- 
and slaves would have been supplied by nearly five times the num- 
ber of free citizens, as I have demonstrated above. Such an addi- 
tion to the present free population of Virginia would place her, in 
point of numbers, before any State in the Union. But if the im- 
mense amount of wealth in slave property which has been taken 


17 


to the Southwest could be brought into the computation, the pop- 
ulation of Virginia would at this time have exceeded that of her 
sister States in a degree proportionate to her superiority of num- ‘ 
bers fifty years ago. 

The monopoly which the Southern States have enjoyed, of sup- 
plying the market of the world with the important articles cotton 
and tobacco, has had great effect in palliating the evils of slavery ; 
or rather, it has introduced, sustained, and extended the system 
much further than could be done under other circumstances. This 
end has been seconded, likewise, by the vast extent of territory over 
which the institution has been extended. This circumstance has 
admitted of the abandonment of exhausted lands, which I will pres- 
eiftly show it is impracticable to improve to any extent in a slave- 
holding country. The Southwestern States, in consequence of 
these favorable circumstances, have increased rapidly in population ; 
but there is every reason to think that the prosperity of these States 
is doomed to be as short-lived as it has been rapid. There is no 
assignable cause why it should go beyond the point at which that 
of the older Southern States ceased, viz: the occupation of all the 
good lands. The census tables show that Virginia and the Caro- 
linas increased rapidly in population up to the period of 1830, since 
which time there seems to be a tendency to retrograde, particularly 
in the eastern parts of those States, to which slavery is almost ex- 
clusively confined. Those who have the curiosity to examine the 
census tables minutely, will find that the slight increase in the pop- 
ulation of Virginia, from 1830 to 1840, has been confined to the 
western part of the State, while there has been an actual diminu- 
tion east of the mountains, and this in spite of the fact that the 
tobacco region is chiefly confined to the east. The same small 
tendency to increase in the western counties of North Carolina is 
observable, with a corresponding stagnation in the east. The num- 
ber of white inhabitants of South Carolina exhibits no increase 
from 1830 to 1840—the blacks increased slightly. The result, com- 
mon to the three States, is clearly traceable to the same origin, the 
occupation of all the lands in them adapted to the growth of tobac- 
co, cotton, and rice. 

The surplus labor arising from the natural increase above what 
is necessary for the cultivation of those lands, is taken to the South- 
west, which accounts for the rapid increase of the new States. But 
the same circumstances will necessarily bring about the same re- 
dundancy in the supply of labor there, so soon as the lands adapted 
to cotton and sugar are occupied ; and the same tendency to the 
deportation of the slaves will exist, so long as there are other new 
lands further west to place them on. 

lt might be supposed that the adaptation to the production of 
articles of prime marketable value, as tobacco, cotton, rice, &c., 
would hold out the greatest encouragement to the improvement of 
the soil; and that a State, Virginia, for instance, which had been 

3 


18 


engaged in the profitable cultivation of one of those articles for 
two centuries, would be in the highest condition of improvement. 
The case, however, is quite the contrary: most of the good lands 
in the eastern part of the State having been cleared and worn out, 
a large part of them having undergone that process two or three 
times. Perhaps the river bottoms may form an exception to this 
rule, as they are nourished by occasional inundations, That the 
lands are suffered to wear out, is not attributable to the indolence 
and bad husbandry of the people, as some imagine, but to the ex- 
pensiveness of the process—the inadequacy of the means. Nearly 
all the people of Eastern Virginia are engaged in agriculture— . 
there being scarcely a respectable town or village in that section of 
the State, excepting Richmond, Norfolk, and Petersburg ; which 
places would hardly afford a market for the beef and butter of a 
dozen square miles. This sparsity of population, I have shown 
above, has resulted from the system of slavery, which absorbs the 
chief part of the accumulated wealth of the people, leaving but lit- 
tle for investment in the manufacturing arts, commerce, &c. Its 
effect is to dispense with the necessity of breeding beef cattle, 
there being no market to justify it, and consequently to cut off the 
principal source from which manure is obtained.* No one could 
afford to breed cattle merely for the sake of the manure; and ex- 
perience, as well as the custom of the country, shows that beef will 
not be substituted for bacon in subsisting the slaves. 

So trifling is the market for products of this kind, that they are 
almost wholly neglected wherever slavery abounds to a considera- 
ble extent ; and even such markets as exist are badly supplied, at 
a high price. The consequence is, that living, in the towns of the 
Southern States, is greatly more expensive than is the case in the 
North, which accounts for the fact that the mechanic arts are found 
to languish in the slaveholding States. The mechanic is compelled 
to advance the price of his manufactures in proportion to his ex- 
pensive living, which brings him in competition with the similar 
article admitted free of duty from the Northern States. It is thus 
that slavery at first opposes the introduction of the manufacturing 
arts, by turning the chief part of the wealth of the South into a dif- 
ferent and unproductive channel, and then discourages their prose- 
cution by the extra expense which attends them. Such of the me- 
chanic arts as can only be exercised at the spot, or near where the 
manufacture is to be consumed, being exempt from Northern com- 
petition, are found in the highest degree profitable, whenever a 
demand exists. This is true of house-building, some kinds of 
smith’s work, &c. 

The census tables show that slavery exists to a very limited ex- 
tent in the mountain regions of the Southern States, which are 


* See Smith’s Wealth of Nations, vol. 1, page 182. 


19 


unsuited to tobacco and cotton ; and the number of slaves in Ken- 
tucky and Tennessee is also disproportionately small, compared 
with the more Southern and Atlantic States. These States and 
parts of States contain the bulk of the white population of the 
South, and exhibit a slow, steady growth. The towns and villages 
in this region, though smaller and less prosperous than those of the 
free States, present an agreeable contrast to the squalid dilapida- 
tion which is everywhere visible upon the borders of the Atlantic. 
There is scarcely a respectable town in any part of the Southern 
States where slavery has long been the chief interest, excepting 
those engaged in the external trade, and these are retrograding in 
population, or making no advance deserving of mention; such is 
the case with Norfolk, Richmond, and Petersburg, Charleston, 
Wilmington, North Carolina, and Savannah. The counties in the 
interior, wherever slavery exists to a considerable extent, are al- - 
most destitute of these evidences of civilization. But in those 
counties further back, where there are but few slaves, the villages 
are numerous, and present a lively appearance ; and the manufac- 
turing arts and agriculture are found to flourish in a ratio inversely 
to the amount of the slave property. Here but a small portion of 
the accumulated wealth of the people assumes the shape of slavery, 
and the consequence is that the general face of the country pre- 
sents some signs of improvement. But it is quite apparent that 
slavery, though existing but partially in this part of the country, has 
had great effect in retarding its improvement and population. This 
is manifest, by comparing it with the contiguous parts of the free 
States. 


CHAPTER, V. 


In the foregoing chapters I have maintained that slavery is the 
great cause of the unprosperous condition of the South ; and have 
endeavored to show in what way it affects the productive energies 
of the country. I will now notice another circumstance to which 
the same evils have been attributed. It is asserted by the advo- 
cates of Free Trade that the South owes its misfortunes and pov- 
erty solely to the Protective Policy, which benefits the manufac- 
turer at the expense of the agriculturist. I have no wish to con- 
trovert the doctrines of Free Trade, or Protection, at present; but I 
shall endeavor to show that neither can be an adequate cause for 
the great disparity which exists in the condition of the Northern 
and Southern sections of the Union. It is contended by the ad- 
vocates of Free Trade that the duties which are imposed on for- 
eign manufactures coming in competition with similar articles 
made in this country, operate as a tax upon the consumer for the 
benefit of the home producer; and that when such duties exceed 
the revenue standard, they in effect take money out of the pocket 
of the farmer without any equivalent, in order to enrich the manu- 


— 


a 


20 


facturer. The extent to which the Tariff is alleged to perform this 
operation of robbing the cultivator of the soil is equal to the differ- 
ence between the price at which foreign goods would sell in our 
market without a Tariff and that at which they sell with it, or 
at which the home-manufacturer can afford his. The advocates of 
the Tariff deny all this, and maintain that the tax mainly falls on 
the foreign producer, while the home competition renders prices 
as low or even lower than they would be without a Tariff, to say 
nothing of the advantages of the domestic market, which is inci- 
dent to the manufacturing establishments. But, for the purposes 
of my argument, it may be admitted that the free trade theory 1s 
correct—allow that the Tariff is as injurious as they contend it is 
to agriculture and commerce—why, I would ask, should all the 
evils fall upon the South and none upon the North? Why is not 
the North impoverished? Why do the free States, without an ex- 
ception, whether they be engaged chiefly in agriculture, manufac- 
tures, of commerce, continue to increase in population and wealth 
in an unprecedented ratio, while the South languishes? In the free 
States, whether new or old, towns and cities are everywhere to be 
met with, exhibiting every element of prosperous growth; and, 
whether the Tariff be high or low, they go on from year to year to 
increase in importance. But the reverse of all this is true in the 
South. Tariff or no Tariff, the older slave-holding States appear 
to be subject to an irreversible law of decline. This cannot be at- 
tributed to the density of their population, which is in fact very 
small compared even with our own free States, and almost nothing 
in contrast with the States of Europe. 

From 1830 to 1840 the population of Virginia and the Carolinas 
made almost no advance. On the other hand, Alabama, Mississip- 
pi, and Louisiana, increased rapidly. If the Tariff produced the 
misfortunes of the former, what caused the prosperity of the latter ? 
But now the same stagnation is beginning to be felt in the new 
States, which has hitherto been witnessed in the old. The good 
cotton lands are becoming exhausted, and slavery has performed 
its mission. Emigration to those States will in a few years cease, 
and the tide will pass on to Texas, which, in its turn, will undergo 
the same process of rapid settlement, early maturity, and speedy 
decline. 

If the Tariff injuriously affects agriculture, it must be most se- 
verely felt by that species which is least profitable. Those sections 
of the country which are chiefly or wholly concerned in the pro- | 
duction of grain, fruits, and vegetables, and cattle and horses, 
would, if the position I am combating be true, exhibit an appear- 
ance of the greatest exhaustion and poverty; while the sections 
producing tobacco, cotton, and rice—articles which enjoy the mo- 
nopoly of every market in the world—would be supposed to suffer 
least from the burthens of the Tariff. But in fact the grain-growing 
States are in a far better condition than those producing the great 


21 


staples. A glance at the map of the United States will show, by 
those exponents of social advancement—towns and cities—that 
the farming States are much ahead of the planting in all the con- 
stituents of national wealth. 

The proportion of capital invested in manufactures in the North- 
ern States is very inconsiderable, compared with that engaged in 
other branches of industry—and that portion of capital engaged in 
the manufacture of articles which depend on protection, is still 
less. The protective policy, therefore, cannot account for the pros- 
perity of that section, any more than it can cause the impoverish- 
ment of the South. 

But the commerce of the South languishes as much as its agri- 
culture. It is true, that the Southern ports are further from Eu- 
rope; but that circumstance cannot account for the fact, that 
nearly all the imports of the country are through Northern ports. 
The difference in distances 1s trifling; and the Southern harbors, 
particularly Norfolk and Charleston, are equal to any north of them. 
But admitting that they lie under some disadvantages of position, 
it is much more than counterbalanced by the consideration that 
three-fourths of the exports of the country are necessarily made 
through them. The chief exports of the United States, cotton and 
tobacco, amounting to some seventy-five or eighty millions per 
annum, are, of necessity, sent abroad through Southern ports. It 
would be in the natural course of trade for the vessels which take 
abroad these products to return to the same ports with cargoes of 
merchandise in exchange for them; but instead of doing so, they 
return to Northern cities with the imports, from whence that por- 
tion of them destined for the South are taken in the coasting ves- 
sels after a transhipment. This is caused by the fact, that the 
great bulk of Southern capital is unproductively invested in slavery, 
leaving none to be otherwise employed. If the free States furnish- 
ed the great bulk of the exports, their commercial prosperity would 
be undoubtedly ascribed to that circumstance; or if the exports 
from the two sections of the Union were equal, it might be plausi- 
bly alleged that the commercial superiority of the North was at- 
tributable to its more favorable position. But nearly all the ex- 
ports being from Southern ports, their meagre and languishing 
commerce is inexplicable upon any other ground than that I have 
assigned. 

I have now to combat the very opposite opinion, viz: that Free 
Trade caused the ruin of Italian Agriculture. 

I have seen an article in Blackwood’s Magazine for March, 
1844, which makes use of the historical facts, in an argument 
against free trade, which I had intended to adduce in corrobora- 
tion of my views of slavery. The writer of the article attributes 
the decline of Italian agriculture to the practical free trade which 
existed between the various parts of the Roman empire, whereby 
the agriculturist of Italy was brought in competition with the fer- 


22 


tile plains of Egypt and Lybia. It seems that the. free traders in 
England have controverted this reasoning of the Reviewer and of 
Allison, from whom he borrows the idea; and they have assigned 
the same cause, slavery, for the decline of agriculture which I do; 
but I presume that they attribute the evil to slavery without at- 
tempting to show how it operates. This I think I have done. I 
have shown that three or four times more capital is necessary, in 
this country, to carry on agricultural operations with slave labor 
than is requisite with free labor. Where the price of land is very 
high, the proportional difference is not so great in favor of free 
labor; but the actual difference is alwavs equal to the value of the 
slaves. This is the case, notwithstanding the profitableness of 
slavery to the individual owner of that species of property. Its 
profitableness is easily accounted for, and consists of the laborer’s 
wages being transferred to the pocket of his master. 

The Reviewer contends that slavery existed in equal degree in 
Egypt and Lybia as in Italy; but withcut equal means of informa- 
tion upon the subject, I doubt the correctness of the statement. 

The Roman people, for a long period before and after the fall of 
the republic, were engaged in continual wars, which, as history 
informs us, and reason makes probable, had the effect of with- 
drawing most of the free agricultural population from their homes; 
and the introduction of thousands of prisoners, to adorn the 
triumphs of her successful generals, would naturally supply the 
place of the freemen. We learn that such was the case; and 
that Italy was abandoned to the wretched cultivation of slave 
labor. 

On the other hand, the distant provinces were less likely to have 
their population withdrawn to support the wars; and the inferior- 
ity of the Egyptian peasantry to the Roman people would disqual- 
ify them for the army. Doubtless the peasantry of Egypt and 
Lybia were in a condition little better than slavery, morally speak- 
ing; but if they were not actually chattels—if each individual was 
so far free as to be under the necessity of providing for himself 
and family—the political evils of such a state of things would be 
far less. The great political evil of slavery is its absorption of 
capital which would otherwise be employed in some species of im- 
provement. If, therefore, the political condition of the peasantry 
in those countries was in any degree similar in that age to what it 
is now represented to be, it must have been much more favorable 
to production than a state of absolute slavery. 

To show that free trade, without reference to slavery, could not 
have proved destructive to Italian agriculture, I would appeal to 
the condition of our own country. What portion of the American 
Union exhibits the highest agricultural improvement? Is it not 
invariably the case (except in the blighted regions of slavery) that 
the oldest and most populous parts are under the highest state of 
cultivation? And yet the same free trade exists here that existed 


23 


in the Roman empire. It would be strange if that portion of the 
country which produces the greatest quantity of manure should be 
ruined by the rivalry of remoter regions. The only effect of that 
competition would be a fall in the price of land; but there could 
be no necessity for abandoning its cultivation. 

The injurious rivalry of the Western States cannot affect the 
Eastern longer than is necessary to exhaust or tire the new lands, 
which, for a few years, yield a rich harvest without the expense of 
manuring. This has already taken place in all the new States 
where lands have been long subjected to their careless husbandry ; 
and in a few years the Atlantic States will be relieved from any 
unequal competition of that kind. 

I have been a little surprised to see the free trade party in New 
York objecting to a further improvement in the facilities for trans- 
porting Western grain to the seaboard. What is that but demand- 
ing protection to the New York farmer ?—the protection of space 
and difficulty—which is no less effective than the highest tariff. 


CHAPTER VI. 


The value of the slave to his master is the difference between 
what he produces and what he consumes; in other words, the 
slave is a charge to his master, or to the land he tills, to the amount 
of his food and clothing: the necessity of feeding and clothing the 
slave population, therefore, so far from enhancing, must diminish 
the value of land. But the reverse of this is the case with reference 
to the free laborer. He is under the necessity of feeding and 
clothing himself, and consequently, so far from being a charge 
upon the landlord, furnishes a market for the products of the soil. 

This proposition is predicated on the known fact that nearly all 
the slaves in the United States are employed in agriculture, or by 
agriculturists as domestics. Of the few who are owned by persons 
unconnected with tillage, the proposition is not true, because the 
owner must purchase of the farmer whatever is necessary to the 
maintenance of his slave; and the wants of the slave, therefore, 
contribute to make a market for agricultural products. But the 
number thus situated is too inconsiderable to affect the general 
principle above laid down. It is to be remarked, further, that if 
the planter or farmer employing slaves, fails to maintain them upon 
the products of his own soil, he must make up the deficiency by 
purchasing from other agriculturists; in this way, the wants of 
the slaves afford encouragement to the agriculture of the State or 
district whence their support comes. But this gain to agriculture 
is counterbalanced by the loss it sustains in the State or district 
where the slaves are thus supported. 

The proposition above stated, that the necessity of feeding 
slaves is a burden to the soil, while the wants of the free laborer 


24 


are conducive to agricultural improvement, will become evident by 
considering—first, that whatever the free laborer eats, he pays for; 
and secondly, that if he ate nothing, if he were a mere machine, 
the necessity of producing whatever he consumes would be dis- 
pensed with, and, consequently, the market for the products of the 
soil would be in that degree narrowed. If the merehant, the me- 
chanic, and the professional man, could live in society without 
food, it is evident that the farmer could never employ their services, 
for the reason that he would have nothing to pay with. Therefore 
their wants hold out an inducement to the cultivation and improve- 
ment of the soil. But the laborer pays no less than the merchant 
or lawyer for what he consumes; therefore, the supply of his wants 
is equally conducive to agricultural improvement. In effect, the 
merchant, mechanic, and professional man, are as much the 
employees or laborers of the agriculturist, as he who ploughs his 
field—they do what he bids them for a consideration ; so does the 
common laborer. It is of course not the interest of the agricul- 
turist to pay wages; but, having to pay them, it is to his advantage 
that the laborer, in common with the community at large, is a con- 
sumer of the products of the soil. In like manner, it is against the 
interest of the farmer to pay for the services of the physician or 
lawyer; but such expenses must be incurred—physicians and law- 
yers are necessary, and they must be paid; and they are in that 
way a necessary evil, a drawback upon the resources of the farmer. 
But, as consumers of the products of the soil, their presence.is bene- 
ficial to the farmer, and raises the demand and the price of what- 
ever he sends to market. The same is true of his dealings with 
the merchant and the mechanic. The payment of their bills is con- 
trary to his interest ; but, as consumers, their presence adds to the 
value of his land by enhancing the value of its products. And in 
what particular differs the case of the common laborer? He is un- 
der no more necessity to work without wages than the lawyer or 
physician, the merchant or tradesman, and he equally pays for what 
he consumes; therefore, the market which his wants create, is 
equally beneficial to the farmer, and equally promotive of agricul- 
tural improvement, as that which is created by the wants of any 
other class of society. The slave, on the contrary, labors from 
compulsion. He is allowed no wages, and the necessity of feeding 
him is so much loss to the master, which it is his interest to dis- 
pense with as far as possible. The slaye lives at the expense of his 
master, and of course what he consumes can hold out no induce- 
ment to improve the soil, but on the contrary must retard improve- 
ment. The free laborer lives at his own expense, and, therefore, 
what he consumes must promote improvement. 

The farmer who employs free labor prefers boarding the laborer, 
for the reason that he thus discharges a large part of the wages 
without advancing money. If the laborer boards himself, his wages 
are higher. Hence his wants, like those of other classes, combine 


25 


to make a market for the products of the soil. But it would be 
greatly to the advantage of the slaveholder if his slave could main- 
tain himself; in that case the master would reap the whole wages 
of the laborer, without any drawback. It follows from hence, that 
the abolition of slavery in the United States would disburden the 
landed interest of the expense of supporting two and a half millions 
of people, and at the same time would add to the value of the lands 
by opening a market in the wants of two and a half millions. The 
necessity of feeding and clothing the slaves is a drawback upon 
the improvement of the land; and the abolition of the system, by 
bringing into existence an equal number of freemen, who would be 
under the necessity of maintaining themselves, would be an en- 
couragement to improvement. Thus the free population of the 
Southern States, by the census of 1840, amounted to four-and- 
three-quarter millions—the slave population to about two-and-a-half 
millions; and, consequently, the inducement to improve the soil 
is made up of these circumstances, viz: the profitableness of grow- 
ing cotton, tobacco, and other articles for foreign and Northern 
markets, together with the domestic market which the wants of 
four-and-three-quarter millions of free people create, diminished by 
the wants of two-and-a-half millions of slaves, which must be fur- 
nished gratis ; the difference being two-and-one-quarter millions. 
But the abolition of slavery would add the wants of the manumitted 
slaves to the other circumstances ; and the inducement to improve 
the land would then be made up of the profitableness of growing 
cotton, tobacco, and the like, for the foreign or Northern markets, 
together with the advantage of supplying the wants of seven-and- 
one-quarter millions of people. In this case, the wants of the ne- 
groes are added to, in the other substracted from, the inducements 
to improve; and the difference is therefore equal to twice the 
wants of the slave population. Hence the abolit on of slavery 
would have the same effect upon the value of land, and hold out 
the same encouragement to its improvement, which would be pro- 
duced by the introduction of five millions of free people by immi- 
gration, under present circumstances. What the positive addition 
to the value of lands would be, from the abolition of slavery, it is 
difficult to say with exactness ; it would certainly bear a large pro- 
portion to their present value. Of course, the lands in those parts 
of the South where the slaves are most numerous, would receive 
the greatest augmentation of value, inasmuch as they would be at 
once relieved from the heavier burden, and be offered the better 
market in the wants of the greater number manumitted. 

I have thus shown that the slaveholders, being also the land pro- 
prietors, would, in a few years, be compensated for the manumis- 
sion of their slaves by the augmented value of their lands. In con- 
sidering the compensation which should be made to them, in the 
event of abolition, therefore, it would be asking too much of Gov- 
ernment to pay down the market value of the slaves. 


Z 


26 


Having endeavored to show that slavery, at any time, is incon- 
sistent with the accumulation of wealth and with the increase of 
population, I will now advert to the particular circumstances which 
make it highly desirable to the Southern people to rid themselves - 
of slavery at the earliest practicable period. 

In the course of fifteen years more, the supply of slave labor in 
the new States will equal that of the older States at present; the 
good lands will have been occupied, and much of them, doubtless, 
have undergone the process of wearing out; and this state of things 
will generate the same tendency to the deportation of the slaves 
which has been seen to exist so strongly for years past in Virginia 
and the Carolinas. This tendency denotes the excess of supply 
over demand in the State where it is produced; and unless there 
exists a market elsewhere, the price must necessarily fall, as would 
that of any other valuable commodity. But there is this peculi- 
arity about this species of property—that the production or supply 
of the article cannot be limited in proportion to the diminution of 
the demand. The slaves will go on to increase in numbers, with- 
out reference to their value, which, in consequence, may become 
nothing. : 

The acquisition of Texas can only postpone this event for a few 
years. All the States east of the Mississippi river, except the States 
of Mississippi and Florida, have a sufficient, or nearly sufficient, 
supply of slave labor.. The former will, in five or six years, have re- 
ceived its full share, while the latter, owing to its barrenness, can 
never require a large number. It may be fairly predicated, there- 
fore, that, after five or seven years, the whole increase of the slave 
population must find a market in the States west of the Mississippi 
river. After that period, the increase in ten years will fall little 
short of a million. To suppose that so many can find a ready mar- 
ket, would be to anticipate a great increase in the consumption of 
cotton, with an unlimited extent of fertile land adapted to its 
growth. The accounts of Texas are so various and contradictory, 
that it would be hazardous to conjecture what may be its capacity 
to furnish profitable occupation to slaves ; but supposing that one 
hundred thousand square miles of it is equal to the State of Missis- 
sippi in fertility, it would not afford a field for the employment of 
more than a million and a half of slaves. I arrive at this conclu-. 
sion by referring to the number of slaves possessed by the older 
States, which are under the necessity of sending off the increase. 
In fourteen years there will not be less than a million, perhaps 
more than that number, of slaves within the States to be formed of 
the Texan Territory; for it must be remembered that after five 
or six years the whole natural increase of more than three millions 
must find occupation there, or become a burden to their owners. 

In 1790, when the first census was taken under the Constitution, 
the population of the whole Union was little more than three mil- 
lions, although the country had been settled for more than one 


At 


hundred and eighty years. But in the next fifty years, the popula- 
tion had risen to more than seventeen millions. In like manner 
the slave population every year increases in a greater ratio, while 
the territory adapted to its employment is limited. A generation 
has sufficed to supply the new estates east of the Mississippi with 
slaves, whereas it required a century and a half to supply a smaller 
territory in the older States. What has been the work of a genera- 
tion, will now be accomplished in a few years. The surplus slave 
population of the Atlantic States has not diminished, while that 
from the new States will, in a short time, be added to it, and the 
whole must find a market or employment west of the Mississippi. 

It is hence evident that the Southern country is approaching a 
period of great and sudden depreciation in the value of slave prop- 
- erty. 


Sn SRR PS ON TEPC a SRSESE, 


We bebe 05 Atle a 8 28> ele Dole Tel ey le Sale Sacrn.'s Sales 'ese 


see eee ike dee ici 


Gaylord Bros. 
Makers 
Syracuse, N. Y. 
PAT. JAN 21, 1908 


